I know voicing my disagreement on this is likely to be unpopular, it's pretty mild disagreement based more on personal taste than anything, so I'm not being unpleasant (I hope) to you Oldman, or indeed anyone, especially as I'm sure I've crossed the line myself in the past. That's not my intent or desire. Rather can't we just think of better ways to illustrate this crank's foolishness, posting pics of the guy when he's asked not to be identified (regardless of his own hypocrisy) seems to be a little.....I'm struggling for the right word....well it just makes me uncomfortable is all. Like I said, probably my own issue and certainly not binding on anyone else.

I don't disagree, much. However the images I posted are images that anybody can find via the google in seconds using the name he gives himself on his own website. If I had linked to them instead, what difference. If I had noted just the search terms to find them, what difference. If this was the first time the KF and GEM identities were linked then that would be different. Then I'd think twice before linking them, he is entitled to free anonymous speech like the rest of us.

If Gordo came here and asked me to remove those images, I would. That would not change the fact they are available for all to see. So what really changes?

But when Gordo starts to accuse others of preparing for a mafia style hit simply because they have posted his picture, well, he had better ask the source of the images I posed to take them down as well as what's the difference?

And when he starts to post that very same picture himself, but with himself cropped out, as "evidence" of being targeted for a "hit" then he can go fuck himself. It's like he wants to make a mountain out of it so he can post blog post after blog post about how he is being persecuted by Darwinists. So he's actually manufacturing this outrage to feed his agenda and as such he no longer get's to control the beast he's unsealed. How is he going to explain that one to the police? That he was so scared of the threats on the website he felt compelled to save the image of himself off and crop it into a header for his blog post? Hardly the act of someone facing a serious threat.

Fact is that bigoted piece of shit wants to hide behind pseudonymous identities so he can spout his anti-gay anti-equality hate and still participate in steering his country onto the "right track" without being seen as a disgusting bigot. I don't have to play that game.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

I know voicing my disagreement on this is likely to be unpopular, it's pretty mild disagreement based more on personal taste than anything, so I'm not being unpleasant (I hope) to you Oldman, or indeed anyone, especially as I'm sure I've crossed the line myself in the past. That's not my intent or desire. Rather can't we just think of better ways to illustrate this crank's foolishness, posting pics of the guy when he's asked not to be identified (regardless of his own hypocrisy) seems to be a little.....I'm struggling for the right word....well it just makes me uncomfortable is all. Like I said, probably my own issue and certainly not binding on anyone else.

I don't disagree, much. However the images I posted are images that anybody can find via the google in seconds using the name he gives himself on his own website. If I had linked to them instead, what difference. If I had noted just the search terms to find them, what difference. If this was the first time the KF and GEM identities were linked then that would be different. Then I'd think twice before linking them, he is entitled to free anonymous speech like the rest of us.

If Gordo came here and asked me to remove those images, I would. That would not change the fact they are available for all to see. So what really changes?

But when Gordo starts to accuse others of preparing for a mafia style hit simply because they have posted his picture, well, he had better ask the source of the images I posed to take them down as well as what's the difference?

And when he starts to post that very same picture himself, but with himself cropped out, as "evidence" of being targeted for a "hit" then he can go fuck himself. It's like he wants to make a mountain out of it so he can post blog post after blog post about how he is being persecuted by Darwinists. So he's actually manufacturing this outrage to feed his agenda and as such he no longer get's to control the beast he's unsealed. How is he going to explain that one to the police? That he was so scared of the threats on the website he felt compelled to save the image of himself off and crop it into a header for his blog post? Hardly the act of someone facing a serious threat.

Fact is that bigoted piece of shit wants to hide behind pseudonymous identities so he can spout his anti-gay anti-equality hate and still participate in steering his country onto the "right track" without being seen as a disgusting bigot. I don't have to play that game.

HUH? HOMO!

HOW MANY MILLION WORDS HAS THAT TWIT USED TO DIG HIS OWN WAY TO HIS OWN PUBLIC HELL?

I guess what I am asking is "do you/we have to play the game you're/we're playing this way?". Like I said, it's probably no more than my own lack of comfort with these things, I'm certainly not claiming to be "right" or anything like it. I also realise I'm dangerously close to the pearl clutching tone trolls I (rightly on occasion) scorn so much. I realise outing him is easy, and that he is woefully incompetent at covering his tracks, does that mean it's a useful course of action? I'm not so sure.

I suppose what is different between you or I posting his pics and someone googling them is that the results of a google are his down to his own incompetence. Us posting the results of that google is moving beyond merely his own incompetence and his expressed wish to remain pseudonymous. As unpleasant as he is, it's a wish I'm happy to tolerate. Why does that wish have to be expressed here? Res ipsa loquitur. Wouldn't emails to him containing his private details and the promise that his words will be linked to his actions suffice for example?

Also, even given that he is an unpleasant git hiding his bigotry behind pseudonymity, doesn't he have that right? Don't even unpleasant views have a right to exist? Oppose his pseudonymous online vomit where it's relevant. Oppose his "real name works" in real life all the way, I'll back you to the hilt, and if it becomes relevant link his online works with his real life ones. I guess I'm not sure it's relevant here. After all I hardly think many of us, even you, can claim to be doing investigative journalism/activism/police work which would require such a link being made. I guess I just don't think the guy is "fair game", and I also guess I think that the attitude that "he's unpleasant therefore he gets what he deserves" strays a little too close to the edge for me. It's the difference between someone tripping over whilst acting the moron with me watching and me pushing them over.

This is (obviously) an area of genuine personal conflict for me. I genuinely laud the association of people with their words when it's applicable. Linking, for example, the British Nationalist Party, with their (incredibly poorly) "hidden" racism is a great example. It's really worth doing. Like I said, I guess that the drivel of one barely coherent bigot on the internet (KF) doesn't reach the bar for me.

However, you do make an excellent point about this not being the first time his identities has been linked. That does weaken my objection severely! And as for his ramblings about persecution, well he's an idiot, you know it, I know it. Like you said, if he were to go to the police they'd laugh at him. I think we're generally in agreement on the big bits!

At the same time, we see outright . . . that the God of the Bible is a moral monster, and those who follow him are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked would-be tyrannical Christo-fascist theocrats and child abusers.

Sig-worthy?

No, I think that's too much of a quote mine, even for Glom of Talkie.

--------------Speaking for myself, I have long been confused . . .-Denyse O'Leary

bloody fucking excellent concern trolling louis, you had me there for a minute.

fuck gordon e mullings of manjack heights montserrat. i would like to see him fight MRSA

Ok, I confess, it's possible I am skirting close to the edges of being "concerned", but I ain't trollin'. If anything I'm genuine and a bit confused.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't go after these guys with everything we have in terms of arguments, words and mockery. Go to it. Be as polite, rude, formal or informal as you like, let a thousand flowers bloom. I certainly don't think (like the concern trolls do) that there is a RIGHT WAY  to communicate. I suppose I'm advocating taking the high road where appropriate and keeping things within the media they are originated in. Within reason o'course and with all the standard caveats about exceptional nuttery.

For example, if I met FTK in the street (unlikely but bear with me) I'm not going to punch her in the face because we disagree about something on the internet. I would hope this is uncontroversial! I'd not take her photo and stick it on the web, even though she does things like that herself (she has a blog page etc etc), it's not my place to do that without her permission. Should I ask and she agree, then that's a different thing. However, should I ask to take and post her photo and she refuse, and I went ahead anyway, even if she did the same thing or forewent the courtesy of even asking, then I think it's pretty clear I've crossed the line in terms of violating her privacy regardless of her actions. However understandable my line crossing might be. Her (hypothetical in this case) double standards, unpleasantness and our disagreement aren't binding on me, they don't force me to act a specific way.

This is also why I occasionally (only very occasionally) feel a twinge of guilt over mocking people like FTK so mercilessly. They're still people. Granted, when reason fails mockery is **A** tool we can use, and we have others too, so I'm not claiming it's "wrong" (far from it!). Just that each tool has its place to some degree, and there can be reasonable disagreement over when a tool is applicable.

Like I said above, in exposing the BNP such tools are vital. I remain unconvinced that, however odious and hypocritical, KF is in any way sufficiently significant to merit the use of such tools. Not only that, but when "we" have "them" beaten all over the park and in every possible manner intellectually, then we simply don't need to resort to the weak tea crap that they do.

I think my point is along the lines of "we have so much to beat them up with, why bother doing something like this which if it doesn't cross the line, is approaching it?".

My thoughts exactly.

Example: In answer to MarkF:

Quote

Onlookers:

Quote

MF,25.1: It is my firm belief that in the end morality is . . . subjective. We have firmly held opinions on what is right and what is wrong and can bring reasons to bear and make rational arguments – but underlying it will be commonly held but subjective attitudes.

This is unfortunately, little more than a nicely phrased way of saying that evolutionary materialism is amoral and radically subjectivist. On such amoral worldview premises, morality can ONLY be subjective (anything dealing with us as subjects is ALSO subject-ive . . . ), without any real objective warrant.

Then, contrast what I was reading overnight from Les Kinsolving, on a recent conference in Baltimore — B4U-ACT (as in, compare ACT-UP) — the next step in the amoralistic agenda (I guess it has been cropping up enough in the porn to begin to benumb consciences through addiction, so it can now begin to be publicly pushed):

Quote

[lenghty quote from WND snipped; the highlighted part:]If they had it their way, sex between adults and minors would no longer be taboo, and pedophilia would no longer be listed as a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association.”

Do you see where our civilisation is headed if it is left in the hands of such?

It is time to wake up, understand the driving force behind the rising amorality and agendas to literally de-moralise our civilisation through reducing morality to a matter of views and feelings that can then be manipulated by clever advocates [demonising and targetting those who dare object -- I notice your silence in the face of tactics that amount to: we know who you are, where you are, who you care fr, and here's the targetting photo . . . ], publicly expose the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the underlying evolutionary materialism, and also take heed to the urgency of reformation.

Mike, don’t play along with MF’s atmosphere poisoning rhetorical distraction.

--------------"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

for fuck's sake they own the gutter. any alternate path is the high road by default.

i am the master of understatement so honestly i don't get much out of the shitty blog in question.

but i have posted photos of gordon mulling's wretched mug before and i will do it again. they are on the internet under his fucking name for shit's sake. if he wasn't such a cunt then it wouldn't even be an issue to begin with.

let's not kid ourselves. pointing and laughing at UD and the clueless anus polyps that inhabit it is nothing more than playing tackle football with 90 year old women. ID is dead, Lenny Flank was right, and the rest of them can fuck square off

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

I think my point is along the lines of "we have so much to beat them up with, why bother doing something like this which if it doesn't cross the line, is approaching it?".

My thoughts exactly.

Yes.

We're smarter than them, better-educated than them, and all the evidence is in our favour.

However, I'm not going to lose any sleep about photos of Gordon Gobshite when they're already publicly available and he uses his own name all the time on a blog he links to from UD. It's not like he's a Baylor regent and someone's posting his address and phone number.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

I think my point is along the lines of "we have so much to beat them up with, why bother doing something like this which if it doesn't cross the line, is approaching it?".

My thoughts exactly.

Yes.

We're smarter than them, better-educated than them, and all the evidence is in our favour.

However, I'm not going to lose any sleep about photos of Gordon Gobshite when they're already publicly available and he uses his own name all the time on a blog he links to from UD. It's not like he's a Baylor regent and someone's posting his address and phone number.

I'll sleep like a baby thanks!

You're absolutely right about the Baylor thing. A few (easily accessible) photos are a trivial nonsense compared to that egregious piece of assholery. But why engage the IDCists on that spectrum of assholery at all? Why give them (however feeble) grist for their paranoid mills? After all, we all rightly decried the Baylor Regent incident.

Like I said, go to it, I'm not claiming to be right, hell I'm probably wrong, it just makes me uncomfortable. A comedy Dembski sweater pic is one thing, it is after all a public photo of a self aggrandising public figure, posting photos of someone who (however unpleasant and incompetent) explicitly requests you don't skirts close to doing exactly the same things those bozos do.

All through this the subtext of those in "support" (because I'm hardly strongly against it now am I?) of posting KF's photos is that these people are somehow fair game for one reason or another. Either it's their own hypocrisy, their own double standards, their bigotry, their odiousness, their own incompetence at maintaining their pseudonymity, whatever. This subtext raises my hackles a little, it makes me suspicious and uncomfortable. It's a terrible justification for actions because it can so swiftly be turned on anyone. It's not grounded in the whole picture. It's pretty easy to vilify the opposition, especially when they are as odious as KF is, and to be frank I'm much less worried about the harm it does to KF (zilch to zilch and a tiny bit) than I am the harm it does to us (probably zilch, though I'm not sure) to be seen to be slumming it with the worst of them.

Meh, like I've said, I'm likely wrong and happy to be so. However I sure as shit know I'd rather exist as part of a community where such disagreements, mild to non-existent though they are, can occur as opposed to the "Big Tent" of bitchiness and backbiting.

Maybe that douchestain wants to send them a book. Lord knows most of them could stand to read one.

I'm not sure there is a line, all I can say is that I probably wouldn't do that.

Other than that, remember children, no one gives a fuck about what Gordon E Mullings of Manjack Heights Montserrat thinks about this other than kairosfocus, a.k.a. Gordon E. Mullings of Manjack Heights Montserrat.

Sooooooo let's not get our knickers in a knot. I wouldn't play Mornington Crescent, or blow a camel, either, but you don't see me putting up a shitty blog to laugh at Louis because he does. If you think this is relevant please explain

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

That being said, I do agree with Louis* that compiling dossiers on the UD denizens borders on creepy stalker behavior. Gentlemen don't read each other's mail, and all that.

* Is that a bannable offense here?

Usually, yes.

Louis

ETA: I don't think anyone here is compiling dossiers! I hope they're not....you're not are you?

This post suggests that whoever is behind that blog is collecting personal information about UD regulars.

If it's a slow night on /b/, that information could be (mis)used.

Yes, that IS "over the line"

But Mullings seems so desperate to find things at which to take offence, so keen to have an excuse to clutch his pearls, that it's an almost superhuman effort for good-natured folk like us to resist fulfilling his need (in this respect only, I hasten to add - any other needs he may have can go un-met, I'm sure)

Maybe that douchestain wants to send them a book. Lord knows most of them could stand to read one.

I'm not sure there is a line, all I can say is that I probably wouldn't do that.

Other than that, remember children, no one gives a fuck about what Gordon E Mullings of Manjack Heights Montserrat thinks about this other than kairosfocus, a.k.a. Gordon E. Mullings of Manjack Heights Montserrat.

Sooooooo let's not get our knickers in a knot. I wouldn't play Mornington Crescent, or blow a camel, either, but you don't see me putting up a shitty blog to laugh at Louis because he does. If you think this is relevant please explain

The only reason you don't play Mornington Crescent is because you don't understand it's subtle joys.

As for the camel noshing...really these ideas you get. I can only assume you get them from your private life.

And expressing mild disagreement/having a discussion =/= getting knickers in a knot. Just, you know, FYI.